Puffs

“It’s tough to see into the future” someone once said. Right now, it’s tough to see a quarter mile ahead with all the fog we’ve had so far in 2024.

Someone came up with the phrase: “Unintended Consequences” I understand in the 1700s. So, its been around for some time. In our day and age, most people take it to mean that the results of an action is not what was expected, or desired.

This happens often in our daily lives and most likely just as often in our public lives. Many times in our political lives, decisions are made at some point with maybe good intentions, but the results are often anything but good.

I bring this up now, in 2024, in an election year, to help me remember to give some serious thought to both persons and policies that will be voted on this year.

One of the things that brought this to my attention this year is the increased attention I’ve been hearing concerning the states of California and Oregon. Crime rates, the handling of homeless people and public health in general. These states, along with a few others (and cities) seems to be leaders in poor health and increased crime.

Some people (especially in the Portland, Oregon area) note the following: “The 1971 law was established to address substance abuse as a health problem, rather than a crime,” Oregon Public Broadcasting reported.

Now, city leaders have poor health and a whole lot of crime.

Seems Portland was one of the cities that led the “Defund the Police” campaign. It didn’t take long for them to renege on that action.

It is a charitable thought to admit that the leaders of 1971 Portland didn’t really want the city to plunge downward into a city of crime and homelessness, and poor health.

A person has to honestly ask: “What were they thinking?”

You can maybe classify that 1971 decision and today’s living conditions in Portland as an “unintentional consequence.”

However, you can also ask the question “What were they thinking?”

The decision made by the U. S. voters to accept the Democrat presidential candidate, Joe Biden, and the Democratic policy of border security on our southern border as to just accept most anyone who comes, as welcomed guests certainly cannot be an “unintentional consequence.”

A person could clearly see at the time the results would be the influx of drugs, crime and many damaging actions. Did the Democrats intend for bad things to happen. I certainly hope not, but what were they (and are) thinking.

For 2024, give the election process your attention. It can be difficult at times, but seek information about policies you are voting on, and then vote.

A O

Since I’m talking about elections this week, I’ll go into another “unintended consequence.” That is “voter fraud.”

The subject has been around for many, many years. Perhaps the largest example could be found back in the days of President Truman. A large number of substantial “voter’s fraud” cases were found.

However, in recent years, ex-president Donald Trump has brought the subject to everyone’s attention again.

I don’t have the money, time or expertise to investigate such matters. As such I like to read investigations by the Heritage Foundation into voter fraud across the U. S.

According to the Heritage Foundation, it happens more than a person knows about. A few examples of fairly recent vintage are as follows:

Bridgeport, Connecticut: In the primary election for mayor a judge tossed the results of a September mayoral primary because a Democrat operative was caught on video apparently dumping a load of ballots into a drop box.

The opponent of the current mayor was ahead on election night, but after absentee ballots came in the next day, the opponent lost.

It so happens the person, caught on video dumping a large number of ballots into the ballot box, was a Democrat. The city of Bridgeport is very heavy Democrat. After the event, attempts were made in the heavy Democratic State Legislature, to enact better voting procedures, but little was done.

Democrats in Connecticut and generally across the U. S. give little importance to voter fraud.

Other examples:

Iowa, New York and Massachusetts: Late in 2023, voter fraud schemes with mass absentee ballots and phony voter registrations were brought by the Justice Dept. and State offices.

Lawrence, Massachusetts: In the city council race, charges of illegal voting, conspiracy to vote illegally and obstruction of voting.

Queens, New York: A Queens man faces 140 charges for casting fake ballots.

Laredo City, Texas: An appeals court overturned the results of a Laredo City Council race. This came after the alleged involvement of city police officers casting illegal votes.

In recent years there have been efforts made to enable every voter who wants to vote, has the opportunity to vote.

That is a worth-while effort, but it seems it has also made easy opportunities for voter fraud to take place.

It seems, in general, Democrats are the ones promoting the easier voting practices. Republicans seem to promote stricter regulations.

Democrats cry that Republican efforts will deny some voters of the opportunity to vote.

In Nebraska it seems the objections to stricter laws centers around the “ID” requirement to vote and I can’t see the problem with an I D requirement. The state has offered to provide “free” I D’s to anyone who can’t afford one, or who doesn’t already have one in the form of a driver’s license, or maybe a military I D.

It seems, in general, Democrats favor laws that lend themselves to voter fraud. Republicans tend to favor laws that would limit voter fraud. I can’t attribute this to “unintended consequence”, but rather to intentional actions.

When asked “what are you thinking” Democrats seem to dismiss the subject as unimportant because it happens so rarely, it is not worth the effort to make any effort to change things.

“Unintended Consequences” do happen even under the best of intentions, but they can be limited if we all just understand what we are voting on.

2024 . . . an election year . . . a leap year . . . a good year. . . enjoy.

A O